Forest Health Monitoring
Program Review
Annual FHM Workshop
Jan 30, 2007
Steve Patterson
USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region
Assistant Director S&PF,
Forest Health Protection
1
Presentation Objectives
Inform about the Review
9 Process
9 Findings/ Recommendations
9 Next Steps
2
Program Review Process
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Directors Recommendation, 12/05
Team Assembled
Prework
FHM Presentations, 10/31/06
Interviews, 11/01/06
Initial Team Report Out, 11/02/06
Final Report, 12/14/06
(view at http://fhm.fs.fed.us/)
3
Review Team Members
Jerry Boughton
Doug Daoust
Assist Director, Forest Health & Economics
Northeastern Area
USDA Forest Service
Newtown Square, Pennsylvania
Group Leader, Forest Health Protection
Pacific Northwest Region
USDA Forest Service
Portland, Oregon
Brent Larson
Steve Patterson
Director of Vegetation Management
Intermountain Region,
USDA Forest Service
Ogden, Utah
Assistant Director, State and Private Forestry
Alaska Region
USDA Forest Service
Anchorage, Alaska
Bruce Jewell
Catherine Sparks
Assistant Director
Southern Research Station
USDA Forest Service
Asheville, North Carolina
Acting State Forester
Rhode Island Division of Forest Environment
North Scituate, Rhode Island
4
Participants
Bill Bechtold
Jim Brown
Mike Bohne
Charlie Burnham
Roger Burnside
Barb Conkling
Tom DeGomez
Jeri Lyn Harris
Dave Heinzen
Mike Kangas
Doug Powell
Rob Mangold
Manfred Mielke
Randy Morin
Roger Mech
Alison Nelson
Greg Reams
Karen Ripley
Don Rogers
Jim Steinman
Frank Sapio
Dave Struble
Borys Tkacz
Southern Research Station, Research Triangle Park, NC
FHP Southern Region, Atlanta, GA
FHP Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento,. CA
Massachusetts Bureau of Forestry, Amherst, MA
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, AK
North Carolina State Univ., Research Triangle Park, NC
University of Arizona, Flagstaff, AZ
FHP Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Grand Rapids, MN
North Dakota Forest Service, Fargo, ND
NFS Ecosystem Management Coordination, Washington, DC
Director of FHP, Arlington, VA
FHP Northeastern Area SPF, St. Paul, MN
FIA Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI
FHP Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR
R&D National Program Manager for FIA, Arlington, VA
Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA
North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, Raleigh, NC
FH&E Northeastern Area SPF, Newtown Square, PA
Director of FHTET, Fort Collins, CO
Maine Forest Service, Augusta, ME
National Program Manager for FHM, Arlington, VA
5
Commendations
– Management
– Credibility
– Futuring
– Partnerships
– National Insect and Disease Risk Map
– SOD Special Survey
– Research on Monitoring Techniques
– Intensive Site Monitoring
6
Recommendations
Organization
- Steering Committee meet more frequently and with
FHM Management Team
- Keep current FHM Management Team structure,
encourage others participation
- FHM primary survey and monitoring component of
FHP
- North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and
Kansas under the Northeastern mega-region, 2
federal reps & 2 state reps on FHM Mangmt Team
- Expand model of state and federal collaboration to
all of FHP
7
Recommendations
Evaluation Monitoring
- Synthesize the EM projects
- Enhance utility of EM using search engine
- Improve ties to strategic needs; know when to shift
investments to another topic
8
Recommendations
Intensive Site Monitoring
- ISM element be maintained as a placeholder within
FHM until compelling need/funding
- Any new ISM undertakings should link to sites where
other ecological process data is being collected
9
Recommendations
Partnerships
- Expand to fill data gaps, develop standardized
surveillance protocols for invasives in areas that are
not currently monitored
- Critical review and timely feedback of all resolutions
submitted at the annual FHM Workgroup meeting is
needed
10
Recommendations
Detection and Monitoring Methods Research and
Development
Convene a meeting and better coordination of the
Threat Assessment Centers, FHTET, and FHP
Directors
- FHM should work with R&D and the APHIS to
develop survey methods for emerald ash borer and
Sirex, and other new invaders
- Develop a clearly articulated research program (base
funding) for FHM detection and evaluation methods
with realistic funding expectations
- Coordinated relationship between the FHP Aerial
Survey Working Group (ASWG) and FHM needed
-
11
Recommendations
Reporting
- Use the annual State Highlight reports to accomplish
the FHP Program’s requirement for annual forest
health reporting to Congress.
- FHTET should continue to develop the data portal
concept
- Annual detection information should be made
geospatially available to clients in a real-time manner
(ARC-GIS ready)
- Directors to secure analysis capacity (analysts)
- Direction and examples needed to improve regional
reports.
- North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas
should submit reporting through the NorthCentral
FHM Coordinator
12
Opportunities
- Expand citizens monitoring
- Use risk map and remote sensing imagery to
guide where aerial survey detection should
and shouldn’t be applied
- Expand involvement in the collaborative
preparation of special issue-oriented reports
at the regional and national scale
13
Next Steps
- Develop response and action plan at the next FHM
Management Team Meeting (May, 2007)
- Implement and monitor progress
14